Notice! Care2 will go offline for site maintenance July 28 at 9pm PST. Thanks
START A PETITION 25,136,189 members: the world's largest community for good
START A PETITION
x
893,380 people care about Women's Rights

New Theory Suggests Poor Should Marry Rich to End Income Inequality

New Theory Suggests Poor Should Marry Rich to End Income Inequality

This week focused on the issue of equal pay for women. In spite of great strides in breaking, or at lease severely cracking, the glass ceiling, the wage gap for women remains and appears to be getting wider. Women make up more than half the work force and, since the recession, a greater number of women are the primary, if not sole, breadwinner. With inherent structural traditions that continue to pay women less, changes in family dynamics also affect the economy as a whole. This coincides with the most extreme levels of income and wealth inequality worldwide in recent history.

There are several factors that contribute to income inequality. Deregulation, politics and an uneven distribution of the progress made over the past 40 years are just some of the conditions that have made the chasm between the very rich and everyone else seemingly insurmountable. Recently a group of researchers have posited another theory to explain the huge disparity and why it may be impossible to reverse.

A working paper titled Marry Your Like: Assortative Mating and Income Inequality presented to the National Bureau of Economic Research puts forth the idea that the rise of assortative mating, which refers to the tendency of similar people marrying each other, is a factor – possibly a key factor – in the rise of inequality. The group of researchers, which hail from the United States, Spain and Germany, set out to explore if there has been a rise in assortative mating since 1960 and if their theory was correct. As they await peer review of their data and methods, they have published their preliminary findings with some interesting conclusions.

While many women did go to college and have careers in the 1960s, most wage earners were men and were the sole provider for the family. Since fewer women worked overall, women and men were more likely to find their future spouse in their social circles rather than their job. This meant church or school (more likely high school than college) would be the place where life mates were found. There was also a better chance of women marrying men from different socioeconomic classes as the lines were generally more blurred.

Sometimes, the prince married Cinderella.

Over the next several decades, a greater number of women were getting higher degrees and more fields opened up for them. This also opened up the circles in which men and women met. Men were meeting more women with college and post-college degrees. According to the assortatative dating theory, these people would more likely choose to date each other, rather than someone who was less educated. The researchers conclude that this is indeed the case.

To test their theory, they explored the affects of random matching. They looked at the census data of select years from 1960 to 2005. In 1960, there was more variance in the education levels between husband and wife. Over time, a greater percentage of couples had identical levels of education. They did an experiment in which they randomly matched the data to see if the results would change. Surprisingly, there was little variance in the results when matched randomly in 1960. However, in 2005, the number of couples with identical education levels changed dramatically, meaning that it would have been much lower if the matching was random rather than by choice.

Traditionally, higher education levels lead to higher wages. It doesn’t take a degree in economics to realize that if two people with higher incomes combine their assets, a higher household income occurs. The researchers conclude that because of the increase of women’s earning power, the coupling of men and women of similar education and economic backgrounds is not a random occurrence.

This is why extreme income inequality is here to stay, according to them.

Their analysis shows the difference in household income when combining different education levels. In all cases, the higher the education level, the higher the education. When spouses had different levels of education (i.e. one post-college and the other high school), the effect on household income was much smaller in 1960. However, even when both spouses had higher levels of education, the increase in household income was half of what the effect is today.

The income gap between the top and everyone else was much more gradual and smaller than 1960. Plus there was a much larger middle class, attributable to the post war economy and government policies that promoted equal access. Today, incomes are much more polarized. So while the idea of assortative mating is not that surprising, the researchers believe the effects can be much more extreme since the difference between wages of top earners and those further down the economic scale are so disparate.

All because women are making more money.

The paper ignores the other issues leading to income inequality, such as the lower wages and lack of access for people, especially those of color. It doesn’t look into the wage gap that pays women less and that the lower wage jobs are dominated by women. The study also looks at data pre-recession, so it does not take into account the changing economic landscape where things like a higher education mean less today. It also doesn’t look into the policies that favor the top one percent and have created the situation today where only a few people control the social and economic lives of everyone else.

In other words, they believe that the  best way to reverse income inequality is for more princes to marry Cinderella — which is a lot easier than focusing on all the other issues.

Read more: , , ,

have you shared this story yet?

some of the best people we know are doing it

188 comments

+ add your own
2:32PM PDT on Jul 4, 2014

I'm willing. Now where is that nice rich man?

9:38AM PDT on Apr 15, 2014

doesn't this already happen time and time again??

5:34AM PDT on Apr 15, 2014

Yes, marrying for mony is not exactly a new concept. However, those that do should be aware that there are likely expectations that are not present in other marriages. These relationships are not necessarily equal, and the gold digger or trophy wife needs to understand this. Some may be fine with this arrangement. Just remember the old adage, you cannot get something for nothing.

10:53PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

If people did a dating service and tried to match the people that would be compatible -- that might help or even work in some of the matches -- as long as each individual chose the partner by their own standards -- aside from money --
(that might not be worth much at some point.)

10:50PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

Getting married for money --- is a way to cause divorce, or disease, or a bad relationship.

10:48PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

Sound more like a person getting married -- only for the money -- and that is not a true marriage for love. That is called "a marriage for money" or convienience(sp) that most people would say is not the real thing.

Some people choose to stay single.

9:00PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

Gold digging, or getting married to a richer person has been around for decades. Did it help the economy back then? I believe in equal rights and pay despite what sex you are, or sexual preference (that can be a concern for some employers). It's not always easy to meet a rich guy or woman and actually seduced them so they can take care of you. If there is love there, which is not often the case. Kudos. This kind of arrangement, is business it's not about love.

8:51PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

Marrying for money is good old fashion gold digging. Not exactly a new concept >:(

6:18PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

Even though I'm a female; I see way to many hard working unmarried young males spending to much money on their girlfriends who still live at home and so does she. Paying for manicures, pedicures, hair, new outfits including shoes, jewelry(gold, diamond earrings etc.)gassing up her car if she has access to one or her own, always paying for the outings including tickets to events on top of every holiday that comes thru out the year including her birthday, 'their anniversaries'(when they met, their first official date etc etc ). Even some young females are doing the same thing for their boyfriends. Some of these young people need to be taught not to spend every hard earned dollar on the opposite sex.

6:05PM PDT on Apr 14, 2014

There are to many marriages and relationships where one spouse or the other is deprived of the right to the money even when they contribute to the household/relationship money. Wives put husbands on extremely tight personal budgets and husbands who do the same thing to their wives. Both parties in the relationship should have access to their own personal funds whether they contribute financially or not and have a say in what happens with the household/relationship funds. Just my opinion folks nothing more.

add your comment



Disclaimer: The views expressed above are solely those of the author and may not reflect those of
Care2, Inc., its employees or advertisers.

ads keep care2 free

Recent Comments from Causes

And it starts with the fear that signing global treaties will interfere with federal and state law that…

Freedom of Religion also means Freedom from Religion. So take your pick!!!...

meet our writers

Julie M. Rodriguez Julie M. Rodriguez is an arts, green living, and political writer based in San Mateo, CA. Her work... more
Story idea? Want to blog? Contact the editors!
ads keep care2 free

more from causes

Animal Welfare

Causes Canada

Causes UK

Children

Civil Rights

Education

Endangered Wildlife

Environment & Wildlife

Global Development

Global Warming

Health Policy

Human Rights

LGBT rights

Politics

Real Food

Trailblazers For Good

Women's Rights




Select names from your address book   |   Help
   

We hate spam. We do not sell or share the email addresses you provide.